Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: console_doc restoration is restricted to platform maintainers, and deck/skill restores touch working content only and must be committed separately. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the primary resources and the maintainer-only exception, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers all three object types, the maintainer restriction, and the commit-separately caveat; the destructive overwrite semantics are left to the annotations, and there is no output schema to explain. Adequate, though a note on irreversibility of the working-content overwrite would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents handle, version, version_id, object_id, contract and the object_type enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Restore') and resources ('a deck or skill ... console documents'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like commit or update_deck. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what restore does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing restore over commit/diff/load_deck, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.